Hoffman and Novak's Response to Rimm's "A Detailed Critique of A
Detailed Critique of the TIME Article "On a Screen Near You: Cyberporn"
This document is a part of a He Says / She
Says set of debates over the TIME cover story "Cyberporn" and the
Rimm study upon which it was based. It is has been modified only to add
links to related parts of other statements in the ongoing debate. The
original version of this text can be found here.
Research Program on Marketing in Computer-Mediated Environments
Donna L. Hoffman
and Thomas P. Novak
Marty Rimm's response to the Hoffman & Novak critique of the Time cover article
Rimm has prepared a
response to the Hoffman and Novak critique of the
Time "Cyberporn" cover article.
Since posting the "Cyberporn Debate" page on the Project 2000 Web server, thousands of individuals have accessed the critiques. We urge all interested readers to now study Rimm's response. Below
are our reactions.
- Mr. Rimm does not address the Hoffman and
Novak critique of the Rimm study (only the critique
of the Time cover article), nor the other posted expert critiques of his reseach.
- Mr. Rimm says "[i]t is peculiar that two business
faculty from a well-known university would invest considerable effort in a
non-reviewed, rushed manner attack [of] a study of computer pornography."
Explaining the whys of bad
research is important when one considers the statements being made by political
officials who have read the Time cover story based upon Rimm's
article. Our underlying goal is to promote electronic commerce on
the many-to-many environment of the World Wide Web and its successors, and
it is our fervent belief that a hysterical rush toward needless legislation
of the Internet will hinder commercial investment and community and
- Mr. Rimm continues to refer to his research as the
"Carnegie Mellon study." Yet the study, and his response to
the Hoffman and Novak Time critique, is single authored.
- Mr. Rimm attempts, throughout his remarks, to
discredit Hoffman and Novak's credentials in an offensive and demeaning
- Mr. Rimm attributes many of the statments made in
the critique to Donna Hoffman alone, yet the critique is dual-authored by
Hoffman and Novak.
- As of this writing (4:30 pm, CST, July 5, 1995)
Rimm's study is not publicly available over the Internet.
note: Our reactions apply to the original version of Rimm's response,
downloaded at 1pm, CST, July 5, 1995, and
This document has been accessed XXX times
and was last updated: Jul 7, 16:16
The number of accesses today is XXX